[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9246-9248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  NATO

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to voice concern about 
the current state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1949, 
more than 60 years ago, the United States joined with 11 other nations 
to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, in order to 
ensure the mutual security of the member nations. From the beginning, 
the United States has served as NATO's backbone and provided a major 
share of the cost in manpower and resources. We have consistently 
answered the call of our NATO allies when they needed us, even when 
there was no clear United States interest involved.
  For example, in 1993 the U.S. military answered the call to 
participate in the NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all 
unauthorized military flights over Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the 
Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, the United States stationed over 10,000 
personnel in support of peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. For the 
following 9 years we continued to retain a large number of forces 
there.
  In 1999 the United States again stepped up and provided a major share 
of the military resources for operations in Kosovo. At that time I 
argued that we were assuming too many commitments in areas of the world 
where our own interests were vague. When President Clinton announced 
that he intended to send 4,000 U.S. troops for peacekeeping in Kosovo, 
I said:

       If we think the United States has the responsibility to go 
     into all these civil conflicts, we are going to dissipate our 
     resources and we're going to place a heavy burden on our 
     taxpayers.

  Today, after years of involvement with NATO-led operations in the 
Balkans, our forces are still a major component of the NATO Kosovo 
force, and we are still contributing approximately 800 troops to that 
effort.
  In fact, of the 22 nations now in NATO contributing troops in Kosovo, 
the United States military makes up approximately 13 percent of the 
total force. As far as cost is concerned, the U.S. taxpayer is still 
footing a very large bill for our presence in Kosovo. In fiscal year 
2010, the President asked for $252 million to pay for operations in 
Kosovo. In fiscal year 2011 it was $312 million. Now as part of the 
fiscal year 2012 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, the 
President is asking for $254 million.
  With this example in mind, I am now deeply concerned that we appear 
to be in the same position again, this time with NATO in Libya. On 
March 31, NATO assumed command and control of operation Unified 
Protector, and was thereafter responsible for enforcing the no-fly zone 
over Libya. With this transfer of authority and responsibility from the 
United States to NATO, there was also an implicit understanding that 
all of NATO member states would be expected to dedicate the necessary 
resources to adequately enforce U.N. Resolutions 1970 and 1973. 
However, almost immediately after taking command, NATO requested a 48-
hour extension of support from American fighter aircraft. This request 
for continued support from American air assets seemed to be at odds 
with the President's statement that coalition forces would be able to 
keep up the pressure on Qadhafi's forces. So, once again, our Nation is 
called upon to provide a large share of the resources and funding for 
another NATO mission that is not in the vital security interests of the 
United States.

[[Page 9247]]

  Indeed, Secretary of Defense Roberts Gates stated on April 21 at a 
DOD press conference that ``while it is not a vital interest for us, 
our allies considered it is a vital interest. And just as they have 
helped us in Afghanistan, we thought it important, the President 
thought it was important, to help them in Libya.''
  We are now on track to spend more than $800 million of U.S. taxpayer 
money this fiscal year on operations involving Libya. I ask, with 
significant concern, how are these operations going to be paid for? 
Where is DOD planning to get the extra almost $1 billion to spend on 
this operation? What programs will need to be cut to fund this third 
operation in which we are now involved: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya? 
Will the President be submitting a supplemental appropriations bill on 
Libya?
  With the example of Libya in our minds, let us be clear as to exactly 
what our allies are contributing to the efforts in Afghanistan. As part 
of the International Security Assistance Force, which is the command in 
charge of operations in Afghanistan, the United States is contributing 
70 percent of the total force, with 46 nations contributing the 
remaining 30 percent.
  As we review the landscape of American military commitments overseas, 
let me emphasize that with U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan 
we should not also be participating in such a major way in an open-
ended conflict in Libya, where we have no clear, vital national 
security interests. Moreover, I believe our NATO allies who do have a 
vital interest in Libya should be willing to play a lead role in terms 
of funding as well as military resources. The fact is, NATO and the 
Arab League should be shouldering the brunt of the military and 
financial burdens associated with Operation Unified Protector, just as 
we are doing in Afghanistan, and have been doing in Iraq.
  If we had all members of NATO contributing proportionately to the 
mission in Libya and also had the Arab League providing comparable 
financial and military assistance, the overwhelming commitment of our 
own U.S. forces would be lessened to a manageable degree. I am 
frustrated that our NATO allies continue to contribute such a small 
amount of resources for operations that are in the vital interest of 
many NATO member states. In Libya, I believe if the U.S. military were 
to stop providing to our allies our unique military capabilities, NATO 
operations for both the no-fly zone as well as the civilian protection 
mission would be seriously degraded and could terminate.
  How have we arrived at this unfortunate state of affairs? Why is it 
that NATO nations are unwilling and unable to effectively operate 
against a weak and isolated nation such as Libya without significant 
military contributions from the United States? One reason we are in 
this position is because many NATO members are not contributing enough 
of their gross domestic product to defense. Instead, many NATO members 
simply look to the United States and the American taxpayer to pay for 
any gaps in defense capabilities. Because many NATO nations do not 
invest strategically in their military capabilities, they are heavily 
dependent on the United States to pay for advanced equipment such as 
intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance platforms to support 
their NATO operations.
  I agree with Secretary Gates' recent assessment, that NATO is turning 
into a two-tiered alliance in which very few members except for the 
United States take on the hard power combat assignments. Instead, the 
majority of the NATO partners limit themselves to soft power work such 
as delivering humanitarian aid. Indeed, of the 28 NATO members, only 
5--the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Greece, and Albania--
exceed the agreed-upon ratio of 2 percent of gross domestic product to 
be spent on defense.
  Two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of 
NATO defense spending has now risen astoundingly to more than 75 
percent. Secretary Gates put all of our efforts under NATO alliance 
operations together at 75 percent. We are all aware that the United 
States is facing very hard and real serious fiscal constraints. Hence 
it is clear that we can no longer continue to pay for the vast majority 
of NATO operations that are not in the vital security interests of our 
Nation. It is time for the United States to ask our allies to step up 
and keep the agreement they made when they became part of NATO, or for 
the United States to consider reducing our spending level that we now 
provide to NATO and also move to redeploy a large portion of our 
military presence in Europe back to the United States.
  I have spoken on the floor many times about my concerns for 
maintaining such a large military presence in Europe and I will 
continue to fight for spending cuts to a largely unnecessary and 
expensive U.S. military presence on the European continent. It was 
decided in the last administration to cut back to two brigade combat 
teams in Europe, in Germany. We have now had the two be expanded to 
four. The other two are now in limbo. So there are now four brigade 
combat teams in Europe. Two were supposed to move back to the United 
States and the military construction to house at least one of those has 
been done at a cost of over 400 million taxpayer dollars. So we have 
the capability to bring home troops, taxpayers have spent $400 million 
in pursuit of that, the barracks sit empty, and we still have four 
brigade combat teams in Europe, in Germany.
  Unfortunately, here is the message we are sending to our European 
allies by that military presence, and by our operations in support of 
NATO, that American taxpayers are willing and able to shoulder the 
burden for their defense, and that there are apparently no consequences 
if the Europeans fail to do their fair share.
  We need to change that message. We need to make our Nation's current 
financial difficulties a priority. Our message should be that NATO has 
been a valuable alliance for 60 years, and it can be in the future, 
with a concerted effort by our allies to share the burden. That means 
truly sharing. The United States should lead when and where our 
capabilities are essential. We do have vast capabilities. When they are 
essential we have shown we will always be there. But others can lead 
where they have the capability to do so, and they need to do it with 
personnel and with the appropriate level of funding.
  The complacency of our allies is increasingly a threat to our 
national security for we are shouldering more and more of the burden, 
even where our involvement is not in the vital interests of the United 
States. The American taxpayer can no longer afford to write endless 
checks for NATO operations. It is time for our allies to shoulder their 
responsibilities and reduce their dependence on U.S. military forces.
  We want to maintain our military strength. We have the greatest 
military in the world. There is no doubt about that. But to keep our 
military strong, we cannot over-deploy our forces. I have talked to 
people who have been to Afghanistan six times on rotations--six times. 
Most of our people who have gone to Afghanistan have gone more than 
once, and that is following all of the time they have been to Iraq as 
well. We must keep our military strong by not overburdening them 
because our allies are not doing their share and supplying the troops 
they agreed to provide when they became members of NATO. For us to keep 
the strength we have, or to handle the big operations where we have the 
unique capabilities, we must be smarter about allocating and sharing 
the responsibilities. We can continue to lead and take the biggest 
share, but not 75 percent of the share and continue to remain strong, 
especially with the financial constraints we have today.
  We are in the midst of negotiating how we can lower our deficit so we 
don't hit that $14 trillion debt ceiling without a plan for bringing 
down the deficit so we will never have to lift that debt ceiling again. 
So it is in everyone's interests for our allies to step up to the 
plate. They made agreements. It used to be a 3-percent gross domestic 
product commitment that was required for NATO. Now we are talking 2 
percent, and only five countries--only five countries--meet that

[[Page 9248]]

test. That is not a sustainable alliance. If we allow them to drag down 
their strongest member, it will not be in the interests of anyone if 
something big happens that requires an immediate and robust response.
  So I appreciate that Secretary Gates, in his final days in office has 
talked very straight to our NATO allies. I hope they are listening, and 
I hope they are prepared to act. Yes, they have financial constraints 
too; we understand that. But it is time the burden be shared. It is 
time we have a real alliance in which we remain strong so we maintain 
the strength to respond to the big emergencies when we are called. 
Being dragged down by smaller contingencies that can be handled by 
others, whether it is Kosovo or Libya--and, certainly, we also are 
concerned about the situation in Syria and Yemen--we can let others be 
in the lead in those areas so that when the big things happen--such as 
Afghanistan which will continue to require our commitment--those major 
efforts can be led by the United States with our unique capabilities 
and our commitment.
  Our military remains the best in the world. Our equipment is the best 
in the world. Our training is the best in the world. We need to 
maintain that strength with an alliance that accepts its responsibility 
for burden sharing. Where we are required to lead and are uniquely 
capable we will do so but we cannot allow ourselves to be continually 
placed in the position where these contingencies drag down our 
capabilities for the future.
  So I applaud Secretary Gates for starting this dialogue in earnest. 
We have talked about it for a long time--for years, actually. We have 
talked to our NATO allies about stepping up to the plate. Even in good 
financial times that didn't happen but for a few. I will say that Great 
Britain has always been there, and we have had other strong alliances, 
including Australia--not in NATO but certainly a strong ally. Canada is 
also a strong ally, but it is time for us to reassess our contributions 
in NATO to preserve our strength so that we are there and prepared for 
major operations, which is in all of our interests.
  Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________